880 
F18 
opy 1 

^ 0/--0--» ^ THE. { 

I .-^ ' '-_ 

OREGON QUESTION; 

OK, A STATEMENT OF THE 

BRITISH CLAIMS TO THE OREGON TERRITORY, 

IS OrPOSITIOM TO 

THE PRETENSIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT 



THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

WITH 

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE, 

AND 

A MAP OF THE TERRITORY. 



BY THOMAS ;FALC0NER, ESQ., 

BARRISTER AT LAW OP L'NCOI.NS INN, MEMBEil OF TAB ftOYAI. 
GEOGKAPIIICAL SOCIEI Y, ETC. ,.^ — ^- ~-^. 



^j^iOi^lCC/V^y- 



^l J882 

NEW-YORK: 

WILLIAM TAYLOR, NO. 2 ASTOR HOUSE, 

CuROBSS, Stringer b Co., Wm. H. Graham— Boston : R-:)0Ing It Co., IlALnvsTC^ Jt 
UuDLBV— Philadelphia: Zikbf.r h. Co.. Colon St Aoriancb— Baltimor"., Md. : 
Shustz k Taylor— Washington, d. c. : Taylor U Co.— Richmond. Va : IIalpin & 
Kkllkr— Charlbston, s. c- a. He\i>— Cincinnati. O. Robin?5N fc Jones— JIo- 
PiLE, Ala.: M. Boullemkt— New Orleans, La.: J. B. SxEELt:, J. C. HoRCAN, xno 
UuRBAHK k. Whitb— Kingston, Ca. W., and Watcrtown, N. Y. 

18 4 5. 



.r/S 



■^s 



PREFACE 



The following pages are a reprint of an argument relating to the preten- 
sions of the American Government to the Oregon Territoi-y, contained in a 
small work which I lately published, entitled, ' On the Discovery of the 
Missisippi, &c.' Some additions to it have been suggested by a work of a 
very intemperate character, written by Mr. Farnham.aud largely circulated 
jn America, which contains statements that I could not have anticipated, and 
which it is right to notice. The subject itself, unfortunately, has obtained a 
new importance through the extraordinary conduct of the House of Rapre- 
sentatives at Washington in passing h. Bill for the Occupation of the Ortgoa 
Territory ; a measure which, if it should become law, the general Govera- 
meat of the United States is incapacitated to enforce, so long as it shall re- 
spect the solenm obligations of an existing treaty. It may be rejected by 
ihe Senate, and very probably will be, but there is too much reason to believe 
that the new Congress, which meets in December next, will entertain it with 
more favour, unless the impropriety and injustice of it shall be more general- 
ly understood in America than at present. 

Putney, March 12, 1845. ■■^y'' - — ^ ^f(p " 



THE OREGON QUESTION. 



HISTORY OF THE CASE. 

The discussions respectini^ the Oregon Territory involve an argument on 
the legal rights of the British Government to the territory in dispute. They 
may portend a storm, and at present there is something unpleasant in them', 
from the violence of the language used in America, and the participation of 
the chief men of that country in attacks on the English government. But 
they may exhaust themselves, and there may be a calm for a time. Never- 
theless, the necessity for the settlement of the dispute is urgent, whether 
hostility is intended, or pacific dispositions shall happily prevail. 
The chief works published in America on the subject, are — 
1. The History of Oregon and California, and the other Territoriea on the 
North- West Coast of America. By Robert Greenhow, Librarian to the De- 
partment of the United States. Boston, 1844. 8vo. Pp. 482. 

2. History of the Oregon Territory, it being a Demonstration of the Title 
of the United States to the same. By Thomas J. Farnbam, New Yorkj 
1844. Vp. 80. 

3. Report of a Committee of House of Representatives, of the 28th Con- 
gress, to whom was referred the Bill, No. 21, ' to organize a Territorial go- 
vernment in the Oregon Territory, and for other purposes.' March 12, 1844. 

Bomuch irrelevant matter is contained in these works, that the answer to 
them may be condensed in a few pages. The reply may, perhaps, be dry 
en )ugh in being confined to the material facts of the case, but it is certainly 
not advisable to imitate the desultory tactics of the American disputant*. , 

The foundation of the American claim to the Oregon Territory depends on 
the e.'ctentof the country known by the name of Louisiana, at the time that 
it was purchised by the American government in 1803, and on the effect of 
a treaty made with the government of Spain in 1319. 

Th3 first French colony in Louisiana was established by adistinguLihed Ca- 



6 

uadian, named D'Iberville, under the authority of a commission from Louis 
XIV, granted to him for ibis express purpose, and the country remained sub- 
ject to the dominion of France UEtil the year 1762. 

By the treaty of Paris, agreed upon in November, 1762, and signed the 
i 0th of February, 1763, and made between the governments of England, 
France and Spain ; the countries of Nova Scotia, Cauada, and Cape Breton, 
were ceded to England, and the eastern limits of the remaining French set- 
tlements ' weVe irrevocably fixed by a line drawn along the middle of the ri- 
ver Mississippi from its source to the river Ibeiville, and from thence by a 
line drawn along the middle to this river and the Lakes Maurepas and Pon- 
chartrain to the sea.' The river and Fort of Mobile, and everything which 
France possessed on the left bank of the Mississippi being ceded, ' except the 
town of New Orleans and the island on which it is situated ' 

By the 20lh article of the same treaty, the government of Spain ceded to 
England that portion of North America called Florida, with Fort St. Augus- 
tin and the Bay of Pensacola, and all that it possessed on the continent of 
North America to the east or south-east of the river Mississippi. 

By a secret treaty made Nov. 3, 1762, and signed the same day on which 
the preliminaries of peace between Great Britain, France, and Spain, were 
signed, — the government of France ceded to that of Spain ' all the country 
known under the name of Louisiana, as also New Orleans and the island on 
which that city is situated,' — that is, so much of Louisiana as had not been 
agreed to be transferred by France to Great Britain. 

On the 3rd of September, 1783, by the treaty made between Great Bri- 
tain and Spain, — East and West Florida were ceded by Great Britain to 
the Spanish government, which thus became again possessed of these its an- 
cient colonies. 

By the treaty made on the 3rd of September, 1783, between Great Britain 
and the United States of America, the independence of these states was re- 
cog lised, and their north-western, western, and southern boundaries were 
thus described : — ' By aline through the middle of Lake Erie until it arrives 
at the water communication between that Lake and Lake Huron; thence 
along the middle of the said water communication into the Lake Huron) 
thence through the middle of the said lake to the water communication be- 
tween that lake and Lake Superior ; thence through Lake Superior, north- 
ward of the Isles Royal and Philipeaux, to the Long Lake ; thence through 
the middle of Long Lake and the water between it and the Lake of the 
Woods, to the Lake of the Woods ; thence through the said lake to the most 
north-western point thereof; and from thence, on a due west course, to the 
Biver Mississippi ; thence by a line dravirn along the middle of the said River 
Mississippi, until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the Slstdegree of 
north latitude — south, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination 
of the line last mentioned in the latitude 31 degrees north of the equator to 
the middle of the River Apalachicola or Catahouche ; thence along tho mid- 
dle thereof to its junction with the Flint River ; thence straight to the head 
of the St. Mary's River, and thence along the middle of the St. Mary's Riv> 
er to the Atlantic Ocean.' 



There was one error in this otherwise clearly defined boundary : — the 
head waters of the Mi^si8si^>I^i Rivi r are south of tl.e Lukeol the Woods, 
and, consequently, a line carried due west from the lake would not touch the 
river. The clear intention of both parlies was to terminate the boundary 
where this junction was expected to take place — where, if the Mississippi 
hud continued in ii course N. it would luivt- iutersected the line running due 
west from the Lake of the Woods. This obvious coirection of the mistake 
is adopted in the map lately published in America by Mr. Greenhow, iu 
which a dotted line from the head waters of the Mis?.issii)pi to the line run 
ningdue west of the Lake of the Woods completes this boundary. But no. 
thing west or north of this line was granted b\ Great Britain to the United 
States in 1733, and nothing north of the head waters of the Mihsissippi was 
regained by France under the treaty of 17G3. 

On October 1, 1800, Louisiana was retroceded by Spain to France ' with 
the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when 
France possessed it, and sucli as it should be after the tieaties subst qucutly 
entered into between Spain and other states.' It was an act of retroces- 
iion, but it transferred so much less than France originally held, as had beea 
•horn from it by the treaty of 1763, which give to Great Britain, and 
through Great Britain to the United States, nearly the entire eastern bankof 
the Mississippi. 

SALE OF LOUISIANA BY BONAPARTE. 
In 1803, with the consent of Bonaparte, then First Consul, Louisiana was 
•old to the United States for eleven million of dollars. The purchase iuclu« 
ded all lauds ' on the east side of the Mississippi River [so as to include New 
Orleans], not then belonging to the United States, aa* far us the great chain 
of mountains which divide tlie waters running into the Pacific and those fall- 
iug into the Atlantic O^ean ; and from the said chain of mouutaius to the Pa- 
cific Ocean, between the territory claimed by Great Britain on the one side 
and by Spain on the other.'* — (' History of the Federal Gjvennnent,' by 
Alden Bradford, LL.D., Editor of the Massachusetts State Papers. Boston, 
1840. P. 130.) — No point was menticned where the lino in the chain of 
mountains was toconnnence, nor where the tract of land lay, forming a por- 
tion of Louisiana, lying between the territory claimed by Spain and Great 
B-itain. France haJ nothing to sell but what constituted Louisiana after tho 
cession made to Great Britain in 17()3. There was, nevertheless, inserted in 
this treaty of sale, a refjrence to a perfectly undeliued line to the J'acific 
having no defined point of connnencement, and referring to territory hav- 
i.ig no definable boundary either on the north, or the south, or on the east. 
But before the treaty for the purchase was completed. President Jetlersou, in 
• letterdated August 12, 1803, wrote thus to Mr. Breckenridge: — • Tho boun- 
dary which I deem not admitting question are the high lauds on the west- 
em side of the Mississippi, inclosing all its waters — the Missouri, of course 
— and terminating in the line drawn from the north-western point, from th^ 
Lake of the Woods to the nearest source of tlie Mississippi, as lately set- 

• Mr. Greenhow. in his elaborate work on the Oregon question, has omit- 
ted all notice of this very important passage. 



8 

tied between Great Britain and the United States. We have some claims 
to extend on the sea-coast westwardly to the Rio Norte or Bravo — and bet- 
ter to go eaatwrardly to the Rio Perdido between Mobile and Pensacola, 
t'le ancient boundary of Louisiana.' It is evident, therefore, that at this tins© 
no French title to any line runi.ing beyond the mountains on the west was 
known to have existed. 

In 181."), Don Louis de Onis was commissioned, on the part of the gov- 
ernment of Spain, to confer with the government of the United States on 
the south-western boundary of Louisiana. Tlie negotiations were termin- 
ated by the treaty called the Florida Treaty, signed at Washington on the 
22nd of February, 13 19.' Tlie south-western boundary of Louisiana had 
previously b?en the Arroyo, midway between Nachitoches and the Adeas, 
this having been the dividing line in 1762, before the cession of Louisiana to 
Spain. By this treaty the boundaiy west was fixed to be the River Sabino 
to the 32nd degree of latitude ; thence due north to the Rio Roxo or the 
Red River of Nachitoches ; thence westward along this river to the de- 
gree longitude 100 west from London {quare, Greenwich) and 23 from 
Washington ; thence due north to the River Arkansas ; thence to its source 
in 42° latitude ; or if the source is north or south of latitude 42°, along a 
line due north or south until it meets the parallel of latitude 42° ; and thence 
along this parallel to the Pacific. 

Thus was the undefined line from the Rocky Mountains to the Pa- 
cific inserted in the agreement lor the purchase of Louisiana con- 
verted into a defined line. 

A sweeping clause was included in the Florida Treaty, by which the 
United States ceded to Spain and ' renounced forever ' all rights, claimsi 
and pretensions to territories lying west and south of the described bounda- 
ry, and Spain ceded to the United States all rights, claims, and pretensions 
to territories east and north of this boundary. On this clause the claim of 
the United States to the Oregon Territory chiefly depends. 

As the treaty was negotiated in order to carry into effect the transfer of 

* In consequence of the omission, on the part of the Sparnsh govern- 
ment, to ratify this treafy within the time agreed on, President Monroe, ia 
his message of December 11,1319, asserted some principles which vrerv 
entirely forgotten by General Cass and Mr. Whealon when the ratificatiou 
of the late treaty between Great Britain and France was pending. ' The 
govenmient of Spain had no justifiable cause for declining to ratify the trea- 
ty. A treaty concluded in conformity with instructions is obligatory, in good 
faith, in all its stipulations, according to the true intent and meaning of the 
parties. Each party is bound to ratify it If either could set it aside, with- 
out the consent of the other, there would no longer be any rules applicable 
to such transactiims between nations. By this proceeding the government 
of Spain has rendered to the United States a new and serious injury.' ' By 
this proceeding Spain has formed a relation between the two countriea 
■which will justify any measures, on the part of the United States, which a 
strong sense of injury and a proper regard for the rights and interests of 
the nation may dictate In the course to be pursued these objects should 
be constantly held in view, and have their due weight. Our national hon- 
our must be maintained, and anew and distinguished proof be afforded of 
that regard for justice and moderation which has invariably governed tho 
councils of this free people.' 



Louisiana, it is material to ascertain how far to the west this province ex- 
ttided vs hen the sale of it was made. 

The first notice of the western biiT Ixry of Loiisiina, of any authority^ 
is in the grant made, September 17, 1712, by Louis XIV to Crozat. Thia 
gi ant empowered him ' to carry on exclusively the trade in all our territories 
by uj p )ssissed and bounded by New Mexico, and by those of the English 
in Carolina ; all the csiablisliments, ports, harbours, rivers, and especially 
the port and harbour of Dauphin Island, formerly called Massacre Island; 
the River St. Louis, formerly called the Mississippi, from the sea shore to 
the Illinois; together with the River St. Philip, formerly called the Missouii 
River, and the St. Jerome, formerly called the Wabash (the Ohio,) with all 
the countries, territories, lakes inland, and the r'i\ers emp'ymg themselves 
directly vr indirectly into that part of the river St. Louis. All the said 
territories, countries, streams, and islands, we will to be and remain com- 
prised under the name of " The Government of Loui81an.\," which shall 
be dependent on the general eovcrnmcnt of New France, and remain subor- 
dinate to it ; and we will, moreover, that all the territories wliich we pos- 
sess on this side of the Illinois be united, as far as need be, to the general 
governnunt of New France, and form a part thereof, reserving to ourselves 
to increase, if we think proper, the extent of the governmentof the said 
couutr)' of Louisiana.' 

This djcument defined with tolerable precision the province of Louisi- 
ana. It was partly bounded on the west by New Mexico; it did not ex- 
tend beyond the Rocky Mountains, for the rivers emptying themselves into 
the Mississippi have their sources on the eaist side of these mountains, and it 
was to reach the Illinois to the north. It wasalso declared that thegover.i- 
n e It should be dependent on the general government of New France — that 
was, subject to the superior authority of the Governor of Canada Some 
years subsequently the Illinois was added to Louisiana. New Mexico 
bounded it, at least as high as 41 degrees, or above the source of the Rio del 
Norte. There was no strip of land to the west belonging to France, as men- 
tioned in the purchase of 1803, ' lying between the territory claimed by 
Great Britain on the one side and Spain on the other ;' and Mr. Greenhow 
admits 'that we are forced to regard the boundaries indicated by nature — 
namely, the highlands separating the waters of the Mississippi from those 
flowing into the Pacific or the Californian Gulf — as the true w^estern bounda- 
ries of Louisiana, ceded to the United States by France in 1803.' — Green- 
how, p. 283. 

The consequence, th-refore, is that the purchase of Louisiana included so 
much territory as was bounded on the north by a line running from tke 
source of the Mississippi due west to the mountains ; on the west by the 
mountains ; on the ea.tlby the River Mississippi; and on the south by the 
Gulf of Mexico. 

A still more important consequence is, that the title to theteiritory claim- 
ed by the United States, west of the mountains — so far as it depends on any 
alleged iSp7n»*\ rights — dates from the year 1819, and is derivable from the 
Florida Treaty m ide with Spain, and not from the purchase of Louislaiia. 



10 

The agreement with France in 1803 professed to give ' a line' across some 
country lying between the territory claimed by Spain and Great Britain, 
which the government of France had no title to interfere with, and the Flor- 
ida Treaty, which was made between Spain and the United States, in order 
to carry into execution that made between France and the United States, 
defined the northern boundary of Mexico to be a line running along the 42d 
parallel of latitude, from the mountains to the Pacific, and accom- 
panied it with a cession of Spanish rights to the north. On the conclu- 
sion of this treaty it was contended, on the part of the United States, that 
Great Britain had no title to any territory north of that parallel, on the 
ground that no other country but Spain had a right to such territory. It is, 
consequently, material to ascertain what were the English claims to the Ore- 
gon Territory prior to the year 1819, that is, to the territory not forming a 
part of Louisiana in 1803. 

The government of Spain during its possession of Mexico never madeany 
settlement on the western coast north of Cape Mendocino (lat. 40° 29' N). 
It was a vacant territory, subject to the same rules of settlement that had 
governed the settlement of other portions of North America. ' Having touch- 
ed only here and there upon a coast,' said Queen Elizabeth to the Spanish 
Ambassador, ' and given names to a few rivers or capes, were such insigni- 
ficant things as could in no ways entitle them (the Spaniards) to a propriety 
farther than in the parts where they actually settledand continued to inhabit.' 
And the principle embodied in this speech has been the rule acted on by 
nearly every European nation. 

DISCOVERIES BY DRAKE. 

The discovery of the coast north of Cape Mendocino was made by Drake, 
and the argument in support of this fact has been well stated in the Morn- 
ing Chronicle in these words: — 

'It suits Mr. Greenhow's purpose to treat a portion of Sir Francis Drake'* 
discoveries on the north-west coast of America asextremely fabulous, whilst 
he accords credit, even then somewliat qualified, to such as will not inter- 
fere with the claims of his countrymen. Such a line drawn between one 
portion of the deeds of tiie naval hero and another is, as we shall see shortly, 
•Dmewhat disingenuous. It is an important point in Mr Greenhow's case, 
however much he may pretend to undervalue it, to ward off Drake and his 
companions from the disputed coast, so far as all latitudes above 43 deg. 
north are concerned. From what he states in p. 124, he is not exactly sure 
that Drake saw the coast as far north as lat. 43 deg. In speaking of the first 
discovery of the Columbia River by Bodega and Maurelle, who sailed under 
the command of Heceta, he tliere says, that, ' Of these coasts, the portion 
south of the 43rd degree of latitude had been seen by Ferrelo in 1543, and 
possibly by Drake in 1578.' Now all the land north of lat. 33 deg. seen by 
Drake in 1573, was unappropriated when Drake visited it, and took posses- 
sion of it, giving it the name of New Albi.m, and, as such, it is found on 
French and Spanish maps of an old date, the southern boundary of New 
Albion lying then many degrees to the southward of what is now the north- 



11 

ern limit of Mexico. But it is Mr. Greeiihnw 's purpose to prevent New 
Albion a' ullhiizurds fruin eiubraciug the Cnluniliia. Dniku poi^sibly, saya 
Mr. Greenliow, touched llie coast, iis f.ir norlli as lat. ii ileg. Had it been 
lat. 42 deg. instead of 43 deg. — the ft.rnier being lheB<;uilieni b<uindii;y 8>- 
signed sii.ce 1819 to theOrtgoa terri ory — he niigiit not have bten so ready 
to throw any dnubt upon thut parallel as the extent of Drake's discovery to 
thenorihwajd — for Drake might have ascended ;LHf.ir as the lorl3-s( c<tn«l 
parallel, without embracing within tiie liniils of New Albion one ningle de- 
gree o< the territory now clainudby the U. States. Mr. Greenhow cares not 
what force the claims of Drake as a discoverer may have eoiitli of Lit. 4 i deg., 
or rather 42 deg., as any claim which might in that case be f.iunded upon 
his discovery by the Britisi. pjveniment would bring it exclusisely in col- 
lision with .Mexico, but Nev\ .Albion not only embr.iced a consideralde por- 
tion of territory now included within the limits of Mexico, but alsoextendeJ 
several degrees to the northward of tbe4hil parallel of latitude; at all 
events, sufficiently so to embrace within the scope of Drake's di.-coveriesthe 
mouth of 'he Columbia. This is by no means an unimportant point for us 
to establish, inasmuch as it puts beyond a doubt the superiority of our cLinw 
in our alter disputes with Spain, and conse(pieiuly the futility of the claim 
which the United States now set up — by virtue of cession from S|iain. 

' That Drake did not discover the north-west coast as far as lat. 43 deg., 
is a proposition based, as Mr. Greenhow admits, on no positive evidence; 
yet, on the other hand, says he, the assertionthathedid • is not 8U[)ported by 
sufficient evidence,' and ' where originally made, it is accompanied by 
statements certainly erroneous, and calculated to destroy the value of the 
whole testimony.' The erroneousness of these statements we shall con- 
sider by-aud-by, after fallowing, in brief deUiil, the course of the British dis- 
coverer on this — until his day — unknown coast. 

• To do so satisfactorily, we must pay some attention to dates, and to geo- 
graphical positions. That Drake had crossed the 42nd parallel of latitude, 
by the 3rd of June, 1579, is a matter admitted on all hands. The contro- 
versy turns upon bis movements between this date and the 17lh of the same 
month, when he sought shelter in a small bay, situated in lat. 33 deg., and 
where he remained five weeks repairing his vessel and trafficking with the 
natives. 01' these movements we have two dilFerent accomits, prepared by 
two members of the expedition, varying from each other in nratters really 
unimportant, btilby no means, in the general conclusion wliiih they each tend 
%3 estiblish, contradictory of each other. Mr. Greenhow gives us to under- 
stajjd thata considerable interval of time elapsed between the publication of 
these two accounts, from which he insinuates an unfavourable inference in 
regard to that latest publisliod, owing to thelengthof time which elapsed be- 
tween its appearance and the couclusi<)n of the voyage — a consideration 
from which we are inclined to infer favourably of both accounts, establish- 
ing, as it does, the entire absence of concert or coUusicjn between their res- 
pective authors, whilst all apprehensions of mistake or forgellulness on the 
part of tie author of iliut latest published are removed by the fact that his 
accounts was prepared ior publication from notes tukeu during the actua 



12 

progress of the expedition. That Mr Greenhow deems it important to di 
vert Drake from the Columbia is evident from the anxiety he display 8 to 
make it appear that, after the 3rd of June, the course of the British Ad 
miral was southward to the bay above named, in lat. 33 deg. In' The 
World encompassed by Sir Francis Drake,' one of the two narratives 
just alluded to, Fletcher, a preacher attached to the expedition, tells u» 
that on the 3rd of June they were in lat. 42 deg., and that on the 5th oi the 
name mouth they anchored near the shore in a' bad bay,' in lat 48 deg., 
but that, being driven from this bay by the violence of the winds, they ran 
southward along the coast, until they reached lat. 38 deg., wherethey found 
the hai-bour in which their vessel was refitted. Pretty, in his ' Famcai 
Voyage of Sir F. Drake,' states that on the 5th of June the vessel was in L t. 
■43 dt'g., when it was determined to seek the land. There is certainly here 
a slight difference in dates, but far from sufficient to throw discredit upon 
the nirratives. when we consider the more important points in which 
they do not thus conflict. Pretty does not mention at what particular point 
land was first made, but he informs us that when they did make it, finding no 
proper harbour, they coasted in a southerly direction until the 17th of the 
same month, when • it pleased God to send them into a fair and good bay, 
within 33 deg. towards tiie line.' They both, therefore, agree that land waa 
made about the 5th, and that it was because a harbour sufficiently good 
could not be found when they first approached it, that they ran to the south- 
ward, until they at length found, in lat. 38 deg., what they were in quest 
of, — an available harbour. It appears, then, from Fletcher, that the point 
where they first made land was in lat. 48 deg., whilst there is nothing itt 
Pretty's account to contradict this assertion. In disproof, however, of ihe 
assertion that Drake discovered the coast as far north as the 48th deg. of la- 
titude, Mr. Greenhow assures us that, " in the first place, it would be diffi: 
cult, if not impossible, for any vessel in two days to pass through six degrees 
of latitude northward, with the wind, as we are assured by both accounts, 
blowing constantly and violently from the north and northwest ; and tliat 
much confidence cannot be placed on assertions as to latitude, based on ob- 
servations made in a vecselon a stormy sea, with imperfect instruments, and 
when the atmosphere was generally charged with thick fogs." 

' As to the first objection, it might be quite true that, under such unfavour- 
able circumstances, no vessel could traverse six degrees of latitude ; but it 
does not necessarily follow that, because the wind was blowingviolently from 
the north and northwest, Drake's course must have been due north, to reach 
the 48lh parallel. To ensure this, he must have been close upon the land 
on the 3rd of June, when he w^s in latitude 42 or 43 degrees — an improba- 
ble conjecture, when we consider that, from the time when he had left the 
American coast, in latitude 16 degrees, until the 3rd of June, when it was 
determined to make land again, his course had been west and nartli-west ; 
BO that on that day, on reaching latitude 43 degrees, he must have been far 
to the westward of the coast His object was to find a passage to England 
by a northern route — afraid to attempt the route by Cape Horn, or the 
Straits of Magellan, for fear he should be intercepted by the Spaniards, who 
Le knew were on the look out for iiim, to recover the booty he had secured 



13 

by the plunder of their towns and shipping. In attempting to make land, 
therefore, on the 3rd of June, nothing would be more likely than that he 
should shape his course to the north-east, which, with the wind a-beam, if 
blowing from the north-west, would enable him to make, without much dif- 
ficulty, from five or six degrees in the course of two days. There is not, 
therefore, the glaring impossibility in the matter which Mr. Greenhow 
would have us to believe. As to ills objection to the doubtful nature of their 
observations, it would apply as much to their observations on the 3rd as on 
the 5lh of June. Mr. Greenhow, in maintaining that latitude 42 '>r 43 de- 
grees was the highest attained by the expedition, and which was attained 
from the 3rd to the 5ih of June, throws no doubt upon the correctness of the 
observations which ascertained this — in his estimation — the highest point 
gained. But between the observations of the 3rd and those of the 5th, that 
Columbia Kiver was included, and this is the only reason that we can per- 
Cjive why Mr. Greenhow should seek to throw discredit on thf latter, for we 
are not told that the sea was more stormy, the instruments more imperfect, 
or the fjgs thicker on the 5lh than they were on the 3rd. But we do not rest 
our case solely upon the correctness or the incorrectness of these observ; - 
tions of latitude. There are otljer circumstances mentioned in connexion 
wilh the expedition which serve to put the correctness of these observa- 
tions in the clearest light, whilst these circumstances are in turn supporltd 
and borne out by them. In the first place, we are told of the severe cold . 
■which the crew encountered before Drake finally abandoned the coast. The 
description given of the climate Mr. Greenhow characterises as an ' inten- 
tional untruth ' We should like to know from Mr Greenhow what purpose 
the relators could have served, or wished to serve, in giving a statement of 
this kind to theworld intentionaU y untrue. There was no boundary dispute 
then — there was no antagonist claiix to the tenitory to be rebutted ; they did 
not fjresee the future importance of the coast, nor the disputes which would 
arise concerning it. The future claim of the United States and che United 
Btates themselves were then alike in the womb of futurity, undreamt of by 
the most visionary of tliat day. They could have no possible motive for de- 
viating from a plain, straightforward statement of what they saw and what . 
they experienced. Besides, if they exaggerated a little in speaking of the 
•weather, it does not follow that they were dealing in wholesale f dsehoods, 
or tl.at their narratives were in toto vitiated by the little extra colouring which 
they may have given to their descriptions of the climr.te. It must be reraem 
bered that they had suddenly ascended from the tropics to an inhospitable la- 
titude, and were, therefore, in a condition to feel thecold more i.c-.-r-n]^ (';,in 
they would otherwise havedone. This may sufficiently account for their im- 
puting, if they did so, exaggerated rigour to the climate. But we are far 
from bting assured that they did. The writer of this has encountered a se- 
vere snow stoim in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on the opposite coast of A mer- 
ic , and precitely in the tame latitude, on the 3rd day of June, the ropes and 
sails being at the same time stiffened with ice. Mr. Greenhow's cxperic-nce 
cf the genial latitudes of Washington may render him as incredulous to such 
statt ments as was the King of Siam in regard to the statement that water 
•ometimcB assumed a form in which it could support aa elephant. We do 



14 

not say that snow and ice are common occurrencrs in the Gulf of St. Law 
rence in the muntli of June, nor iloi-s it at all rullovv that they are so on the 
Pacific coast between iho 4'3id and 43ih [larallels, from the accounts furnish. 
eA us l>y llie comrades of Drake ; but it is by no means so impossible as Mr. 
Greenliow imuiziiies it, that in June, 1579, the weather on the north-west coast 
Diay hive been as rigorous as it is de[ticted to have been. 

' 'I'here is another iinjiortant statement to be found in these narratives 
which must not be overlooked. In Fletcher's account we are told that the 
adventurers ■ searcht- d the coast diiigcnlly, even unto lite 48;h degree, yet 
they fi:und not the laud to trend as much as one point in any place towaids 
the east but ra'.h'T riuming on continually to tlie north-west, as if it went 
directly to meet wiih Asia.' If anything were wanting to prove that Drake 
and his companions ascended to a much higher latitude than 43 degrees, it is 
abuada.itly furnished in this account of the inclination of the coast at the 
point whence they deemed it advisable to return. Whilever doubts Mr. 
Greenliow may attempt to throw upon their observations of lati.nde, he ad- 
mits that their observation of the coast, so fir as they state it to trend in no 
oue [loint tu he eiist, is [lerfecily accurate. So it is; for the ilirection of the 
coast fioni C.ipe Mendocino to about the 43th degree of latitude is al- 
most due north. If. then, they were competent to judge of the ioclination 
of flie coast at one point, they were equally so to judge of it in another. The 
same parties who state, very correctly, that the land did not trend at all to 
the east, state also that they at length found it inclining in a norih- westerly 
direction, as if stretching towards Asia. Mr. Greenliow. however, chooses 
til consider them, in tnis latter point, as either again deceived, or as guilty 
of another ' iiiteii'ional untruth :' and he triumphantly assures us that their 
w'l »letestim)uy is invalid ited, iuwnuchas thelaud nowhere inclines to the 
nj.-th-.vjst bitwaen the 40 hand 4l!.h digreas, b:it ru:H nuarly diti north. 
Very true, Mr. Greeiih ivv ; but wh;it do we find to be the casej ist at the 
43th degree of north hititu le 7 Si nply that at this precise point, the western 
coast of North America makes a remarkable deviation frtun its previous 
north'jily direction, and runs thence hi a course as nearly north-west as 
before it ran due north. This is a circumstance which couhl not fail to im- 
press it<elf upon any one wh » h;i I seen tlie coast at this poi.it. Had Fletch- 
O • been drawing on his iui igiu itiou in making this statement — had he been 
hazarding a coiijec'ure. instead of stating a f ict which had come under his 
observation, he would more likely have given the coast a north-ca.-terly than 
a uor;h-.ve8terly direction: ftr it was under thfi firm conviction that the 
coast some whet e io these northern latitudes so inclined to the eastward as 
to allow them to p -oceed by a northern route to Europe, that they had -s- 
ceuded into these lititud w at; all. But Mr Greeuh »w, ftr (ireciscly the 
'ante reison tli it h ; would throw diicrcvlit on th-ir accounts of the climate 
attem Its to throw di.-icredit also upon Fletcher's descri[>ii on of the north- 
westeily direction of the coast. He would thus treat the former, because 
the intensity of the cold, as represeutcd in the narratives, presupposes a 
h'gh'T latitule thm 4 J degrees, to which ha would ctuifine Sir Francis 
Dnke; and he would discredit the latter, becau.^e, by showing that the 
a laiiral had reached the point where the land itiolined to the uorih-west, he 



15 

had in fact reached the 43th parallel of latitude, the poitit assigned by Fletch- 
er, and not denied by Pretty. We have already seen that Mr. Greenhow, 
himself does not call llie accuracy of tlie narrator in question when he de- 
scribes the direction in which the land from 43 dog to 43 deg. did net 
trend; and he cannot be allowed, to suit his own views, to attempt to falsify 
the statement of the same individual, when lie describes how it did trend 
when the expedition reached the point where the coast first assumed its 
narth-westerly inclination. He who is competent to say correctly that, in 
a distance of about 503 miles, a coast docs not stretch at any point to the 
eastward, is surely competent to say when it stretches to the westward; 
and when his statement in both cases tallies with what is now universally 
known to be true, he cannot be justly suspected of falsehood in the one 
case when he is admitted to have told the strict truth in the other. 

' But it is more convenient for Mr. Greenhow to discredit his statement 
—as to having seen the coast running to the north-west — than to allow that 
ihe expedition reached a point where the coast did so incline: for if P'letcher 
told the truth, the expedition did reach that point; and if it did reach that 
point, it reached latitude 43 degrees, and, consequently, ascended nearly two 
degrees above the latitude of the mouth of the Columbia. 

' Thus, then, we see, that there is every reason to believe that Drake's 
discoveries on the north-west ciast extended as far north as the 43th paral . 
lei of latitude, that is, about two degrees north of the Columbia River, and 
from 5 to 6 deg. north of the point which Mr. Greenhow is willing to admit 
that he reached. We see that his course from the 3rd of June, when he de- 
termined to make land, was north- east, and not a southerly course, as Mr. 
Greenhow would have it to be ; a conclusion which better tallies with the 
time at which he reachad the bay in lat. 33 deg., than if he had steered di. 
rectly south from the 43rd parallel. We have seen that Mr. Greenhow 
deems it unlikely that Drake could have ascended from 5 to 6 degrees to the 
northward, against northerly winds, in the short space of two days (that he 
was compelled thus to encounter head winds, however, being an erroneous 
conjecture, considering Drake's probable position on the 3rd) ; but is it not 
much more unlikely th it he would h ive taken from twelve to fourteen days 
to sail from 4 to 5 degrees 1 1 the southward, with a favouring north wind 
blowing all the time ; f jr he did not reach the bay in which he refitted until 
the 17th 7 The whole of that time, however, might easily have been con- 
sumed in first ascending to latitude 43 degrees ; and then, on finding no 
available harbour there, proceeding cautiously to the southward, until he 
entered what is considered to be the buy at present known as the Bay of 
Ran Francisco. Until, therefore, an equally authenticated discovery can be 
shown to have taken place prior to this period, of this same coast, in favour 
of Spain, the title of England to the ultimate exclusive sovereignty of the 
territory must stand nnafi't-cted by the pretensions of Spain, or those of any- 
other power seeking to derive a right through her.' 

DISCOVERIES BY SPAIN, BY COOK AND OTHERS. 
Between titles founded on mere discovery, the di.scovery of Drake 
gives a priority. But as the English made no settlement until about the 



16 

year 1790, the interval of two centuries would establish the fact of an aban- 
donment of an intention to settle, if previous to 1790 the government of any 
other country had made a settlement on the coast ; for there can be no ques- 
tion, that mere discovery is not alone a complete title to possession. 

The first vayage made by the Spaniards along the western coast of Ameri- 
ca, which it is necessary to notice, is that made by Juan Perez in 1774. The 
last voyage previously made by the Spaniards on this coast occurred as far 
back as the year 1603. No official account of the expedition of Juan Perez 
has been published, but it has been inferred that he discovered Nootka 
Sound ; though it is admitted at the same time, that the discovery of tliif im- 
portant harbour is by general consent assigned to Captain Cook : and that 
the government of Spain 'has deprived itself of the means of establisliing 
beyond question the claim of Perez to the discovery.' — (Greenhow, p. 
117.) 

On the return of Perez another expedition was sent to the North Seas 
by the Spanish government. It consisted of two vessels, the ' Santiago,' 
commai'ded by Don Bruno Heceta, and the ' Scjnora,' commanded by Don 
Juan Francisco do la Bodega y Quadra, who succeeded Ayala after tlie ves- 
83l tailed, and who had with liim Maurelle as pilot. Soon after Laving 
tie Isle de Dolores, north of the Columbia, the vessels parted co.npany. 
Bodega proceeded north beyond ths 56tli degree of latitude, and examined 
the coast now belonging to and possessed by Russia. The ' Santiago' re- 
timed, and on the 15th of August, 1775, Heceta observed an opt uing in the 
coast in lat 46^ 17, from which a current rushed so strong as to prevent his 
entering. This fact convinced him of the existence of a river, and lie plac d 
it on his chart, under the name of the Rio St. Roc. — (Giecuho-v, p. i.'HO,) 
Tois is the first notice of the Columbia River. 

In the year 1778 Captain Coo'.c visited tlie west coast of North America/o 
which Drake had given the name of New Albion. Oa the 7ih of i\larch lie 
reached the coast in 44 deg of north latitude. He continued his explora- 
tion north, but passed the Columbia River without observing it. He dis- 
covered Noolka Sound, among other places, and having reached the la:)d a 
the foot of Mount Elias (lat. 60^ 18.) continued his course round the coast to 
the Aleutian Islands. This was the first voyage in which any survey of the 
coast that can be relied on, or that even deserves the name, was made. 

In 1779 Spain became involved iu a war with Great Britain, and its flig 
did not again appear on the coast north of Cape Mendocino until 1783. — 
(Greenhow, p. 126 ) 

In 1739 the seizure was made of the ' Ipliigeuia,' the ' Argonaut,' the 
' North-West America,' and the ' Princess,' at Nootka, by the Spanish cap- 
tain, Martinez. Mearcs, the Englishman chieHy concerned in the adventure 
anJ trade in which they were engaged, may, and certainly seems to, have 
misrepresented several facts connected with it ; he miy havj hjis.ed other 
colours than British, in order to evade a supposed infringement of the rights 
of the East India Company ; and he may have demanded and obtained, as 
always happens in demands fjr indemnification, more than was actually lost; 
but Martinez certainly exceeded his authority, for he was specially instruct- 
ed by the Viceroy of Mexico not to capture any British vewels on the north- 



17 

weet coast. The personal factsof tho case are not of the -lightest import- 
ance ; the only question dependent on it i.s, whether or not the English or 
any other foreign i at Jn had a right to trade ou the coast, or, at this time, to 
make settlements upon it? 

Now it i^ a clear and admitted fact thatlhe government ofSpain never made 
any settlement north of Cape Mendocino. The whole coast for upwards of 
25 deg'-ees north of the cape was waste, unsettled and unoccupied. Through- 
oat the whole distance there was no person authorized to execute authority 
on the part of Spain, or any other power, at any single jwint. 

RIGHTOF SOVEKEIGNITY AND OF M.\KING SETTLEMENTS. 

The right of making .settlements under such circumstances as these has 
been argued by Mr. Greeuhow, and his argument is too important, upon ac- 
count of its admis.sions, to omit. He says — 

' It should be observed with regard to the right of the Spanisli govern- 
ment to take possession of Nootka, that before ihe 6th of May, 1789, when 
Martinez entered the soimd with that object, no settlement, factory, or other 
establishment whatsoever, had been founded or attempted ; nor had any 
jurisdiction been exercised by the authorities or subjects of a civilized na- 
tion in any part of America, bordering upon the I'acihc, between Port San 
Francisco, near the 33th degree of north latitude, and I'rince William's 
Sound, near the GO'.h. The Si)anish, the British, the Russians, and the 
French had, indeed, landed at mniy places on these coasts, where they had 
displayed Hags, perfjrmed ceremonies, and erected monuments, by way of 
< tiiking possession,' as it is termed, of tl)e adjacent territories for their respec- 
tive Sovereigns ; but such acts are, ami were then, generally considered 
cg empty pageants, securing no real rights to those by whom or in whose 
1 a nes they were performed. Nor does it appear that any portion of the 
above-mentioned territories had become the property of a foreigner, either 
by purchase, occupation, or any other tille which can be regarded as va- 
lid. 

' The right of exclusive sovereignty over these extensive regions was 
claimed by Spain in viitue of the papal concession in 14S)3, of the first discov- 
ery of the coast by Spanish subjects, and oftiie contiguity of »he territories to 
the settled dominion of Spain. Of the validity (f the tille derived from the 
papal concession, it is needless in the present day to speak. That the Span- 
iards were the first discoverers of the west coasts of Ameri a, as far north 
at the 50;h parallel of latitude, has been shown : and the fact is, and ever 
has been, since the publication of Maurelle's 'Journal' in 1731, as indisput- 
able as that the Portuguese discovered the south coasts of Africa. The ex- 
tent of the rights derived from discovery are, however, by no means clearly 
defined by writers on public law; and the praciice of nations has been so 
diffiireat in different cases, that it seems impossible to deduce any general 
rule from it. That a nation whose subjects or citizens have ascertained 
the existence of a conntry, previously unknown, should have a better right 
than any other to make settlements in that country ; and, after such 
eettlemsnt, to own it, aad to exercise sovereignty over it, is in every respect 
conformable with nature and justice ; but this principle is liable to innumer- 



18 

able difficulties in its application to particular cases. It is seldom easy to 
decide huvv far a discovery may have been such, in all respects, as should 
give this strongest right to settle, or to what extent oFcountry a title of 
sovereignty may have been ac(iaireJ by a particular settlement And even 
when the novelty, or priority, or suflicieacy of the discovery is admiltad, 
the right of prior occupation cannot surely be regarded as subsisting for 
ever to the exclusion of all other nations ; and the claims of states occupy- 
mg contiguous territories are always to be taken into ' consideration." ' 

Notwithstanding the alleged difficulty of determining when the govern- 
ment of a country, which has no title to occupy a vacant territory by reason 
of discovery, may occupy it as abandoned, the practice in such cases has 
been tolerably uniform. Discovery alone, and an alleged intention to occu- 
py, certainly do not give a perfect title, unless an actual occupation takes 
place. Nor does the discovery of part of a great territory entitle the first 
settlers to take the whole. For instance, the continent of North America 
was first discovered by the English under Cabot ; but the right, neverthe- 
less, of the French to settle on it wes never questioned. The southern part 
of the same continent was occupied by Spain, but the French, nevertheless, 
made the contiguous settlementof Louisiana. Where there is clear evidence 
of abandonment — where the discovery is not followed by preparations to oc- 
cupy, a settlement may be made in opposition to a title of discovery. 
Where, also, the territory can be separated by any natural and distinct boun- 
dary — whether that of distance from prior settlements, or the physical 
facts of mountains or deserts — a settlement can be made in opposition to 
any previously made. 

But ' a settlement' must be understood to mean, the estr blishment of the 
laws or government of the persons making the settlement, with the consent 
and authority of the nation to whichthey belong. Without such an authori- 
ty they are mere outcasts and vagabonds on a desert, and have no right to 
form a government of themselves. A colony of the mother country — that is, 
a body of settlers among whom the law of their country can be administer- 
ed — can only be formed by the consent of their own government. Discov- 
eries actually accompanied by occupation, without siu;h consent, do not en- 
title the settlers to any of the rights of their own government, or to exercise 
any power, even of the most inferior description, under the pretence of be- 
ing a colony. A settler can only have the authority that is delegated to him, 
and without such a delegation he has no power. His occupation of new ter- 
ritory may be subsequently recognized by his own government; but unlefs 
it is so recognized, jirior to any settlement being made by the authority of 
some other government, it does not become a dependency of the nation of 
the settler. 

At the time the English were at Nootka, the coast was perfectly abandoned 
by Spain ; there was no Spanish settlement on it. It was open to any na. 
tion to make a settlement, or to recognize any that had been made by ita 
subjects without authority. 

When the news arrived in England of the seizure of the vessels by Mar- 
tinez, the British government claimed the right of having indemnification 
made to then- owners ; it determined to recognize any settlement that bad 



19 

been miide, and it expressed its intention to make settlements on the west 
coast of America. On the 5th of May, 1790, a niessige of the Crown was 
dalivereJ to Parliament, complaining •' that no satisfaction was made or of- 
fered for the acts of seiznre, and that a direct claim was asserted by the 
Court of Spain to the exclusive rights of sovereignty, navigation, and com- 
merce, in the territories, coasts, and seas in that part of the world." The 
message was received by Parliament with much ap[)r()bation, and the ne- 
cessary 8upi)lies were very liberally granted to enforce the claims made. 

In the declaration of Spain, dated Aranjuez. June 4, 1790, signed by the 
Conde de Florida Blanca, it is said that, " although Spain may not have es- 
tablishments or colonies planted upon the coasts or in the ports in dispute, it 
does not follow that such coast or port does not belong to her." The Brit 
ish government alleged " that English subjects had an indisputable right to 
the eu joyment of a free and uninterrupted navigation, commerce, and fish- 
ery ; and to the possession of such establishments as they should form with 
the consent of the natives of the country not {)revi()usly occupied by any 
European nation." 

On the part of Spain there was no declaration of an intention to occupy ; 
and on the other side there was no assertion of a right to occupy in case 
occupation had been already taken by an European power. 

The dispute was terminated by the convention between Great Britain 
and Spain, signed at the Escurial, October 'iS, 1790. By the third article 
it was agreed that " the respective subjects of the contracting parties should 
not be molested in navigating or carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific 
Ocean or in the South Seas, or in landing on the coasts of those seas, in pla- 
ces not already occupied, for the purpose of ciirrying on their commerce 
with the natives of the country, or of making sclllemtnls there." But this 
article was subject to the restriction, that the government of Great Britain 
should prevent an illicit trade with the Spani h settlements, and that the 
British should not navigate or fish within ten leagues of the coast already 
occui)ied by Spain. And it was Ly the fifth article agreed, that as well in 
the places restored as " in all other parts of the north-western coast of 
North America, or of the islands adj iceut, situated to the norlh of the parts 
of the said coast already occupied by S[)ain, wherever the subjects of either 
of the tw>) powers shall have madi3 settlements since the month of April 
1739, or shall hereafter make any, the subjects of the other shall have free 
access." 

This convention was an admission of the right of the British government 
to make .settlements, and the right sanctioned is not to be distinguished from 
that of Russia to its settlements on the norlh- west coast The admission of 
this right was not granted as a licence, liable to i e revoked or lost by a war 
— it was not made as a favour or concession. It is one of those agreements 
respecting territory — such, for instance, as the treaty of 1783, made be 
twcen Great Britain and the United States — which a war does not revoke 
The admission contained in the convention is of a priucijjle to which the 
Stiites of America, the colony of Canada, and the Stale of Louisiana, owe 
their existence. No new doctrine was set up. An oil esUxblished rule was 
recognize.!, and a war would have been the result if it had continued to bo 
Cjntested. 



20 

Mr. Adams, whose long and distinguished career in the highest offices of 
his country hud made him familiar with these questions, was compelled to 
treat it as a definitive settlement of a general principle of national law 
(Greenhow, p, 341, n.). And the President Munroe, in his message of De- 
cember 2, 1321, admitted that no new principle had been asserted in the 
claims of Russia, and of Great Britain, to settle on the coast, but that tho 
occasion had been found proper for asserting that '• henceforth the Ameri- 
can continents were not to be considered as subjects for European coloni- 
zation," — a declaration against which the Courts both of Russia and of 
Great Britain protested — (Greenhow, p. 336.) 

The convention did not exclude Spain from making settlements if it 
should think fit ; but on the part of Spain the right of Great Britain to make 
them was acknowledged, and the iuteuticn and right of making one at 
Nootka Sound was especially declared and allowed. 

Much of the difficulty which has arisen upon this subject would have 
been avoided if tlie terms employed in this convention had been attended 
to. It was not the intention of the English government to let loose a body 
of men upon the west coast of America, free to act as they pleased, and to 
exhibit their passions in the licence and violence of alawless condition. Nor 
was it the intention of the Spanish government to establish its law over 
them. The proposed 'settlements ' were to be those of a civilized nation, 
and necessarily implied their sulgection to English law ; and this, not for a 
temporary object, but in order to occupy the country, according to the open 
and distinct declaration of this purpose in the previous official correspond- 
ence. 

When tho convention was communicated to Parliament, it became the 
Bubject of party discussion, as every important communication to a popular 
assembly will be. The just and wisely-arranged treaty lately made between 
Great Brit;iin and the United States respecting the north-eastern boundary 
of the United States — :i treaty which ought, beyond all others, to have been 
accepted with unanimous approval, being a most hanourable settlement of 
a most complex question, did not escape the bitter though fortiuiately im- 
potent criticism of a party opposition. Such attacks, when great interests 
are at stake — when unanimity, might be instructive and no princijile is com- 
pronisad — miy be regretted, but the language of thsm is not to be adapted 
in the interpretation of the policy of those whose acts are condemned. Mr. 
Fox, Lord Grey, and the Marquis of Lansdowne contended that by the con- 
vention of the Escurial. nothing bad been gained and much surrendered. 
If the English,' said Lord Grey, ' iorm a settlement on one hill, the Span- 
iards may erect a fort on another.' Tlie Eaglish ministers did not enter 
into an explanation. They had not demanded the supplies, which enabled 
them to put afloat a great armament, in order to effect so absurd an arrange- 
ment as that described by|the opposition, and Mr. Pitt was too sagacious to 
have committed the blunders imputed to him. 

DISCOVERIES OF VANCOUVER. 
The instructions given to Captain Vancouver, who was commissioned to 
«ailto the north-west coistof America, and to take possession of Nootka 



21 

Sound, and to ascertain what parta of the coast were unsettled, were an offi- 
cia] interpretation of the convention, and they certainly appear to have boea 
drawn up in conformity with an agreement with the Spanish government. 
On the 4thof Jnne, 1792, after the survey ot a considerable extent of coast, 
Captain Vancouver, at Possession Sound, took possession ' with the usual 
formalities, of all that part of New Albion from the la.itude 39^ 20' south, 
and long. 236'^ 26' E. to the entrance of the inlet of the sea said to be the 
supposed Strait of Juan de Fuca, as also of all the coasts, islands, Sec, witliia 
the said strait and both its shores.' 

On the 23d of June Captain Vancouver met the Spanish schooners, tho 
< Sutil ' and the ' Mexicana,' under the command of Galiano and Valdna. 
The communications between the commanders were of the most friendly 
character. At Nootka, Vancouver met the ' Diedul-js,' with instructions from 
the British government, and he was referred to a letter brought by the samo 
ship from the Count do Florida Blanca, addressed U> the commandant of the 
fort of San Lorenzo at Nootka, ordering that officer, in conformity with the 
first article of tho convention, to put his Britannic Majesty's commissioners 
in possession of the buildings and districts, or parcel.-* of land which had beea 
occupied by the Englis'.i in April, 1739, as well in the port of Nootka as ia 
Port Cox, situated about sixteen leagues further southward. 

It is impossible to understand how it could ever have been inferred from 
those events that Great Britain and Spain had agreed to a 'joint occupancy' 
of the country. The British government claimed the right, which it avert- 
ed was common to any civilised government, to take possession of vacant 
wastes. It never pietended to claim a joint occupation with Si)aiu — for it 
was admitted that Spain did not 'occupy ' the country — but simply a right 
common to it, Spain, &.C., to settle in countries beyond the limits of any civil- 
ized government. This right being acknowledged, Vancouver took posses- 
sion of the countr)' froni 39 -> 20' to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This pos- 
session was taken exclusive of Spain. It was an act indicating the construc- 
tion of the Nootka convention by the government of Great Bri'.ain. Nor ia 
this all. The proceedings of Vancouver were published with the sanction of 
government in 1798. There was no concealment of what had been done. 
The official act by which the country was annexed to the British Crown 
was notified to all the world, and it was not followed by any remoustranco 
or adverse claim. 

Kow. under these circumstances, could 'joint occupation' be i7iferred t 
If there had been j.)int occupation, there must have beet 'joint law' ad- 
ministered — or, in fact, no law. The absurdity is convenient, in order to 
complicate the subject, but it hjisno foundation in the events of tho Nootka 
contest. 

The correspondence between Vancouver and the Spanish commandant, 
Quadra, ditVored respecting the extent of cession to be made; and they 
agreed to submit tho matter to their respective governments. 

The expedition of the ' Sutil ' and the ' Me.\icana ' in 1792 was the last 
made by the Spanish government with the object of discovery in the North 
Sea. AftoT this the Spaniards abandoned the coast in dispute, and never at- 
tempted to form au establishment upon it. (Greenhow, p. 257.) The or- 



22 

der for the abandonment of Nootka was not merely sent by the ' Dscdalus,' 
but was cominiiuicated to that moat eminent Viceroy of Mexico, the Count 
de Reviilagigedo, — a name ever to be honoured. (Greenhow, p. 227, n.) 

After having taken possession of Nootka, Vancouver proceeded on the 
survey of the coast. Meeting with the American vessel the ' Columbia,' 
commanded by Gray, he was iuf)rmed of the river noticed by Heceta, into 
which Gray had entered and named after his vessel. Broughton was sent 
to examine the river, and [jassed the bar. His survey extended inland for 
upwards of one hundred miles from where he anchored his ship. 'Pre- 
viously to his departure he formally took possession of the river and the 
country in its vicinity in bis Britannic Majesty's name, having every reason 
to believe that the subjects of no other civilized nation or state had ever en- 
tered the river befoi-e. In this opinion he was confirmed by Mr. Gray's 
sketch, in which it does not appear that Mr. Gray either saw or was ever 
within five leagues of its entrance.'* 

CAPTAIN VANCOUVER DEFENDEn FROM THE STRICTURES CF MR. GREENHOW. 

* The very bitter tone in which Mr. Greenhow speaks of Captain Van- 
couver, and his complaint that Captain V. endeavoured to deprive Gray of 
the honour of having seen the Columbia River, is not justified by the facts. 
It appears by the log-book of the "Columbia," that Gray crossed the bar ol 
the river on the 11th of May, 1792. Atone o'clock he anchored. At noon 
of tLe 14th he weighed anchor; at four o'clock he had sailed upwards of 
fifteen miles, and at hall-past four o'clock the ship took ground, when 
she was backed otf and again anchored. On the 15th Gray dropped down 
the river, and the subsequent movements were to get the vessel out. On 
the 20th he got clear of ihe bar. The river he named the Columbia, and 
called one point of the entrance Adam's point, and the other Hancock's 
point. 

These facts are no doubt correct. The log-book has been printed in re- 
ports of committees of Congress, and the copy verified by affidavit, in 
the belief that it contradicts the English statement of the case. 

Captain Vancouver states (vol ii., p. 53,) that Broughton had with him a 
chart made by Gray — that he got to an inlet which he supposed the chart to 
represent, aud passed Adam's point. After a minute description of the in- 
let, he says: — 'This bay terminated the researches of ^lr. Gray, and to 
commemorate his discovery it was named " Gray's Bay." ' This certainly 
proves that there was no wish to avoid acknowledging Gray's merits. The 
inlet from the sea to the river runs about east and west, and in the chart of 
Vancouver ' Gray's Bay ' is placed east of Adam's point, and far inland. On 
the 2-lth of October (1792) Broughton left the "Chatham " in lat. 46° 17, 
having brought it as far within the bay as he thought safe, and as far as he 
had reason to suppose the "Columbia" had been brought. (Vancouver, 
vol. ii, p. 56.) He then proceeded to survey in a boat, taking with him a 
week's proviiijus. He proceeded up the river until the -iOth, and calcu- 
lated the distance he went, and which he particularly describes, 'from what 
he considered to l)e the entrance of the river, to be eighty-four, and from the 
" Chatham " ] 00 miles.' That is, that the entrance ot the river was sixteen 
miles (upwards of five leagues') above where he left the " Chatham," aud 
conseciuently above where Gray anchored. He therefore came to the con- 
clusicn that Gray did not see what he called and explained to be 'the en- 
trance,' and this conclusion is sustained by the distance mentioned in Gray's 
own log-book. 

Thus the statement of Broughton and that of Gray are perfectly consis- 
tent, and there is nothing in Vancouver's relation of ihe facts of the case to 
justify the charge ' that he possessed good temper and good feelings, except 



23 

DISCOVERIES OF CAPT. GRAY. 

Recognizing the merit of Gray, and admitting, the claim that he is the 
first person who noticed the river after Heceta, who placed it on his chart 
within one mile of its true position, — still no claim can be set np on this ac- 
ount by thj United St.itjs. Thi discovert/ of a river, after the coast ad- 
cjoini)"g it h:uj been discovered, has no pecnliar virtue to exclude rights coa-. 
nected with the discovery of the adjoining coast. Before Gray entered the 
river, the entire coast had been traced. The posscssioti of a river may be fol- 
lowed with important inland rights; but Gray neither discovered it for the 
first time, nor had antl ority to take possession of it. In the discovery he 
bad been anticipated by Heceta; he had no power to take possession, for he 
was in a private ship, pursuing his private affairs; and the private acts of 
an American citizen in such matters are not more important than similar 
private acts of English subjects. 

The discovery of Gray has been put forth by the American government as 
the foundation of a title to the country. It took place in 1792 ; and therefore, 
if the government of Spain had any title to grant territory reaching to the 
Columbia in 1819, Gray's proceedings must have been hostile, and an inva- 
sion of Spanish territory. Gray, however, being a private person, could not 
have commilted an actof public hostility : but the settmg up of this title is an 
admission by the American goverimientthat the country was, in 1792, open 
to be occupied by persons having the oflicial authority of their governmeuf 
as Vancouver had. Such an admission — and it has been formally and offici- 
ally made — is destructive of any alleged right to the country, derivable from 
Spain. 

The ' tiiking possession' of new countries by authorized official persons 
in the formal manner that it was done by Vancouver, is not the idle ceremo- 
ny Mr. Greenhow represents it to be. By the law of England, the Crown 
possesses absolute authority to extend its sovereignty : it can send its diplo- 
matist to treat for. its soldier to conquer, its sailor to settle new countries. 
This it can do independently of Parliament ; and no act of the wdiuary 
legislature is needed to establish English law and authority in such 
countries. A power of legislation is absolutely vested in the Crown for 



with regard to citizens of the United States, against whom and their country 
he cheri^hed the most bitter animosity.' So far from this being so, he 
makes the fullest acknowledgment of Gray's services — he retained the 
name of 'Adams' point' on his chart, and he adopted that of Gray's ship, 
the " Columbia," as the name of the river. The error that Mr. Greenhow 
has made has arisen from his taking a single sentence without the context. 
The inlet may be considered as part of the river, but Broughton was justifi- 
ed in thinking it to be an arm of the sea. He concealed nothing, and gave 
bis reasons for distinguishing the entrance of the river from the entrance to 
the inlet, for which he had the practice and authority of navigators. So far 
from misrepresenting the facts, the very evidence ot Gray's log-book, which 
ie produced to contradict him, verifies his statement. The veracity of Van- 
couver can never be disputed. He exhibited an anxious care to recognize 
the previous discovery of Gray, and no American who shall read the whole 
account — thougii he may say that the entrance to the river is the entrance to 
the iult-t — can come to the conclusion tliat any fact hiis been misrepresented, 
or that there was any attempt to do injustice to Gray. If Broughton had 
not explained what he meant, there would have been reason to complain. 



24 

these purposes, which it can execute through the officers it may name. It 
can, also, as is well known to all Americans, legislate for such settlements 
independently of Parliament ; or it may delegate its own power of legisla- 
tion The charter of Rhode Island granted by Charles II, and under which 
that state was governed until 1842, is an illustration of such legislation, and 
ofthe delegation of such authority. The Crown in that case, by its own 
legislative act, established English laws in that colony, and delegated its 
power of legislation to a very popular local legislature 

The ' taking possession,' therefore, of a new country by persans officially 
authorized — and no private person can assume the authority — is the ex- 
ercise of a sovereign power, a distinct act of legislation, by which the new 
territory becomes annexed to the dominions of the Crown. 

These principles were lately insisted on by the government against Brit- 
ish subjects : — 

'" Neither individuals," said Governor Sir George Gipps, in a most lu- 
minous and admirable argument (New Zealand papei's, May 11, 1841, No. 
311, p. 64), ' nor bodies of men belonging to any nation, can form colonies 
except with the consent and under the direction and control of their own 
government ; and from any settlement which they may form without the 
consent of their government they may be ousted. This is simply to say, ls 
far as Englishmen are concerned, colonies cannot be formed without the 
consent of the Crown." "I thought a declaration ofthe nature of th. t 
■which stands in the preamble necessary, upon the same grounds that it was 
thought necessary by the Committee ofthe House of Commons in 1337, and 
I thhik it is the more necessary now, when I see the gross ignorance which 
prevails upon this sulyect, even among persons otherwise well informed,— 
when I hear persons, and even lawyers, contend that Englishmen may set 
up a government for themselves whenever they like, and regardless alike of 
the Queen's authority and their own allegiance. Why, Captain Cook had 
as much right to purchase New Zealand for himself when he discovered it, 
or I had as much right to purchase the island of Tongatoboo from the chief of 
that countrj', who came to visit me the other day, as Mr. Wcntworth had to 
purchase the Middle Island of New Zealand from the savages who were in 
Sydney in February last. When I cast my eye over the vast Pacific, and 
the innumei-able islands with which it is studded, and consider that one man 
may seize an island here and another an island there, and thai by dint of ma. 
king themselves troublesome, they may in the end render the in e feienco 
ofthe governmeni necessary, it is time to let people know that the law of 
England does not admit of such practices.'" 

The constitution of other countries vests a similar sovei'eign authority ia 
the Crown to that existing in Great Britain; but under the tVmerican con- 
stitution the President has no authority of the kind; he cannot annex terri- 
tories to existing States, nor by his own act enlarge the boundaries of 
American dominions The constitution has, in its first article, vested "all 
legislative power" in Congress. Before, therefore, the sovereignty of the 
United States can be establis'aed in a new territory, there must bean equiv- 
alent act of legislation by Congress to that necessary to be performed by 



25 

the English Crown. How oth'-rwiso is it to be known to what country tho 
'erritoiy belongs 7 

After a country has had a new territory fonnally annexed to it, there 
doubtless remain other acts to be performed to complete the title, such a« 
actual settlement, &c. ; or, otherwise, the inference of other countries is 
that the intention to occupy is abandoned. But the prior right to settle con- 
tinues, even if there is a ground to imagine an intention to abandon, until 
^ome other country shall actually, and according to the forms which its 
laws sanction, establish its own laws rmd authority in the country. 

LEWIS AND CLARKK, CAPTAN SMIITH, AND J. J. ASTOR. 

In 130> Lewis and Clarke, who had been commissioned in the previous 
year, by President .lefTerson, to explore the country west of the Rocky 
Mountains, reached the Columbia River, and returned to the United States 
in 1806. But this act of exploration, not resting on an original right of dis- 
covery, nor acconjpanied by any act of American legislation respecting the 
country, nor by any attempt to occupy, clearly does not establish )> title to 
the territory west of the mountains. Nor is such a title set up. " Politi- 
cally, the expedition was an announcement to the world of the intention of 
the American government to occupy and settle the countries explored.'' — 
(Greenhow, p. 288 ) But such intention had already been announced to 
the world by the Engli.sh government in a public, authentic, and legal man- 
ner, and its sovereignty over the country declared. 

In 1810 Captain Smith, from Boston, built a house and garden on the 
south bank of the Columbia, but abandoned it before the close of the year. 
This was the act of a private person, and no political inference can be drawn 
from it. 

In the same year Jacob Astor, of New York, formed th*? " Pacific Fur 
Company." He communicated his intention to the British North-West 
Company, and offered to it one-third of the interest of the scheme. The 
proposal was not accepted ; and it is asked "if Mr. .Astor, a citizen of the 
United States, was justifiable in thus offering to an association of British 
subjects, noted for its enmity to his adopted country, a share of the advan- 
tages to be obtained under the flag of the United States, from territories ex- 
clusively belonging to the United States, and of which the exclusive posses- 
sion by the United States was evidently essential to the advantage and wel- 
fare of the republic?" — (Greenhow, p. 294.) An English subject would 
have been free to make such an offer. Exclusive possession of the country 
by the United States certainly did not exist, for it had not taken any step 
either to claim, to possess it, or to annex it. Wh'-n the company was form- 
ed, " the majority not only of the inferior servants, but also of the partners, 
were British subjects," — (Greenhow, p. 29.">.) They made an establish- 
ment on the Columbia River, but in consequence of diflSculties, Macdou- 
gall and Mackenzie announced their determination, on the 1st July, 1312, 
lo dissolve the company, and Mr. Hunt, another of tlie partners, in .\ugU3t, 
1313, acceded to it. On the 16th of October, 1313, an agreement was made 
between Messrs. Mactavi-h and John Stuart, on the part of the British 
North-VVest Company, and Messrs. Macdougall, Mackenzie, and Clarke, oa 



26 

the other purt, by which all the establishments, furs, stock in hand, of the 
racific Company, in the country of Columbia, were sold to the North-West 
Company for about 58,000 dollars. The difficulties which caused this dis- 
Bolution might, it is said, have been overcome, " if the direc ing partners on 
the Columbia had been Ameiicans instead of being, as the greater part were, 
men unconnected with the United Sta'es by birth, or citizenship, or previ- 
ous residence, or family lies." — (Greenhovv, p. 30')). It was, therefore, a 
settlement made by a majoritj- of English, and the sovereignty of the English 
government having been declared over the country, they were amenable 
ti English laws. Mr. Astor could not annex the territory to the United 
States, and his s )le object was to obtain furs. Shortly after the sale was 
made, a British sloop of war, the 'Racoon,' reached the Columbia, and the 
name of Fort George was given to the establishment. 

Supposing, however, that the war between Great Britain and the United 
States had not broken out about this time, and that the ' Racoon' had 
brought to Columbia a judge, or a commission to any of the partners, to act 
as judge in the civil and criminal affairs of the colouy, could the United 
States, or any other country, have insioted that he could not have exercised 
jurisdiction ? Could any persons who were there have exempted them- 
selves from the jurisdiction of such a court? But, on the other hand, let it 
be supposed that the President of the United States had sent a commission 
to any person to administer the law there, would that commission have been 
operative ? Would the Supreme Court of the United States have held, that 
in countries over which the legislature of the United States has not estab- 
lished its law — which had not been annexed to or possessed by its govern- 
ment, thattlie President could deal with men's lives, with their fortunes and 
property, or govern beyond the jurisdiction of American law ? 

The United States had not subjected the Oregon or the Columbia to its 
authority. It formed no part of any existing State ; it was not a portion of a 
territory over which it had legislated, or even claimed to legislate. 

The Britis'.i government, on the contrary, had declared its intention to es- 
tablish its law there, and it had attached it to its dominions in a formal and 
authentic manner. When the North-West Company took possession of the 
establishment in 1813, an authorized colony of British subjects from that 
moment was formed, subject to and governed by P^nglish laws — an actual 
occupation of the country was made, and a settlement on the river has con- 
tinued until the present day. The company were legally empowered to 
make such a settlement, and when made the English law prevailed over it. 
A more perfect title could not be. 

At the termination of the war between Great Britain and America, a de- 
mand was made for the restoration of the post sold by Mr. Astor's partners 
as a portion of the territory of the United States taken during the war. The 
answer was, that it had not been captured; that the Americans had retired 
from it under an agreement of sale ; that the North-West Company had pur- 
chased it; that the territory had early been taken possession of in his Ma- 
jesty's name, as it had been by Broughton in Vancouver's expedition, and 
that it had been since considered to torm a part of his Majesty's dominions. 
— (Greenhow, p. 307.) It was, however, agreed that the post should be 
restored, and " that the question of the title to the territory should be dis- 



27 

cussed in the negotiation on limits and other matters, which was soon to b« 
commenced."* 

This negotiation and its temporary settlement deserve particular notice. 
The United States contended that it had a light to the territory; it asserted 
this right in the most lormal and solenni manner, and it received possession 
of the post in consequence of its official remonstrance. Now it matters not 
whether its title, as against Great Britain, was valid or not. After this ar- 
rangement it could not, without violation of its honour and a breach of its 
engagements with Great Britain, enter into a treaty with Spain affecting the 
post in dispute ; nor can it allege a title to it through Spain, without pro- 
claiming to the world that the assertion of its pretensions in 1814 were with- 
out foundation, and that it knew them to be without foundation. This act 
of dishonour it must admit, if the treaty of 1319 is alleged to confer any 
title. A title in 1314, and a title under the treaty of 1819, are utterly incon- 
sistent. If the treaty of 1319 is relied on, then it must be admitted that 
Great Britain was '-in occupation" in 1314. when the post at Astoria was 
given up, and that this occupation was rightful as against the United 
States. That such occupation was rightful as against Spain has already 
been proved. 

But if the allegation of the government of the United States, that its title 
to Astoria was rightful in 1814 is relied on, then it necessarily follows that 
the treaty of 1319 could only confer a right to territory south of the settle- 
ment of Astoria, and south, also, of the British settlements on the ColumLia 
River, and that the territory north of Cape Mendocino was open to the set 
tlemeut of other countries than Spaiu in 1314. 

From these facts it is impossible that the government of the Unit:"d States 
can extricate itself without dishonour, if its title to the Oregon Territory is 
insisted on. 

It was probably from a knowledge of an intention to set upa claim, founded 
on the treatyof 1819, that the Americangovenimeut suspected that the ralifica- 
tionof this treaty was delayed through an intrigue of the British government. 
But we acted on that occasion as we have done in every transaction with the 
United States — in perfect good faith, and with the fullest reliance upon the 
honour of the American governn;ent ; assuming no fraud or deception on its 
part, performing our own obligations affecting the rights of other parlies, and 
only asserting rights to whicli we were justly entitled. When Lord Castle- 
reagh received Mr. Rush, the American minister, iu September, 1319, he 
reail to him part of the despatches of Sir Henry ^Vellesley. to prove that the 
wishes of the British court had been made known to the Spanish cabinet in 
favour of the ratification of the treaty. These despatches were dated June 
6 and July 6. In one, Sir Heniy VVellesley distinctly expressed his opinion 



* I cite this statement in the words of Mr. Greenhow (p. 308), because 
in subsequent pages, which he heads ' British Views of National Faith,' 
(210, 312), he declares tli;it Fort George was delivered up without any res- 
ervation or exception, and e.xpresses his disbelief that Sir Charles Bagot, the 
British minister, commi.uicated to the American government, in pursuance 
of Lord Castlereagii's direction of the 4th of February, 1818, the lact that 
Great Britain claimed llie territory, and insisted that the American settle- 
ment was an encroachment. The delivery was clearly the execution of the 
conditional agreement mentioned in the text. 



28 

that the true interests of Spain would be best promoted by the ralilication. 
Lord Castlereagh also added, that ' the willingness of the British cabinet to 
accede to the possession of the Fioridas by the United States might be infer- 
red from the indirect offer which it had made two years before to mediate 
between the United States and Spain — an offer which had been declined.' 
It was not then supposed to be possible, that the government of the United 
States would attempt, through that treaty, to evade the discussion of the 
questions which the settlement made by Mr. Astor's partners on the Colum- 
bia had occasioned, and which were then pending. 

DEDUCTIONS. 

From the facts above related, it may be inferred that Spain never occupied 
but abandoned the westcoast of North America ; that the country was open 
t3 the settlements of ollior countries than that of Spain — even by the admis- 
sion of the American government in its assortion of a claim to Astoria iu 
1814 ; that the British goverumentin 17D2 announced its intention to occupy, 
and formally declared the atmexation of parts of the coast to its own territory, 
acting in this respect as the government of Russia has done ; that the settle- 
ment at Astoria was a private and unauthorized proceeding; and that the 
British settlement on the Columbia was the first of a national and legal cha- 
racter recognizable a? such by foreign nations. 

The extern of the coast cltim which the British government was entitled 
to insist on, in the subsequent negotiations, might have been sustained by the 
following principles, which were laid down by the American government 
in its communications with the Spanish minister in 1S19 : — 

' First, that when any European nation takes possession of any extent of 
sea coast, that possession is understood as extending into the interior coun- 
try to the sources of the rivers emptying within that coast — to all their branch- 
es, and the countries they cover ; and to give it a right, in excUision of all 
other nations, to the same. 

' Secondly, that whenever one European nation makes a discovery.and takes 
possession of any portion of this continent, and another afterwards does the 
same at any distance from it, where the bouudiry is not determined by the 
principles above mentioned, that the n)iddle distance becomes such course. 

' Thirdly, tliat whenever any European nation has thus acquired a right to 
any portion of territory on this continent, that right can never be diminish- 
ed or affected by any power by virtue of purchases made, by grants or con- 
quests of the natives within the limits thereof.' 

That is, the British government, on authority of these texts of national law, 
which are perfectly correct, wasentilled to a boundary which should include 
both banks of the Columbia River, and all the territory drained by it, includ- 
ing the whole coastline and other rivers, of which [ossessiou hud been taken 
by Vancouver, under the orders of his government. 

Secondly, By the 7th article ('f the treaty of I'aris of 1763 — which related 
only to Louisiana and Canada — the line drawn from the source of the River 
Mississippi to the south, gave to Great Britain all the lands on the east bank 
of the river, except New Orleans, and secured to France and tlirough it to 
Spain, t.ie territory west of the s.imj line, ajfaras the Rocky Mountains or 



29 

western boundaiy of Louisiana. But the territory of Cann.da, north of the 
source of the river 47'-' 10' N. lat., and northofa line running west from the 
source of the river, wasleftas part of Canada, of which it most indisputably 
ormed a portion.. This clearly appears from the official map engraved in 
1757,* and used in the negotiations, 1762. The American and the British 
titles, at this point, are both derived from the French, and, consequently, 
what the French government marked in this official map of 1757 as Canada, 
excluded any subsequent claim to it as a part of Louisiana. 

In the treaty made between Great Britain and tha United Statet, nothing 
west of a line running north from the source of the Mississippi, to the line 
running due west of the furthermost point of the Lake of the Woods, 
was granted to the United States All, therefore, north of a line run- 
ning west, from the source of the Mississippi, that is the country north of a 
paiallel of latitude of about 47 degrees, was English territory, and formed 
part of Canada, unconceded by any treaty. 

But the English government has neither insisted upon its title to the whole 
of the Oregon, nor even to the whole of Canada — the latter of which w^ould 
have been very prejudicial to American interests. In a treaty signed be- 
tween the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and the United States, in April, 
1307, it was agreed that 'a line drawn north or south (as the case might re- 
quire) from the most n;)rth-western paint of the Like of Wood*, until it 
shall intersect the 4nth paraUcl of latitude, and from the point of such mter- 
section due west, along and with the said 2iaral] el shall be the dividing lino 
between his M.ijesty's territories and those of the United States, to the vve.st- 
w.ird ol the said Like, as far as tliair respective territories e.\tend in that 
quarter — provided that notlyng in the present article shall extend to the 
northwest coast of America, or to the territories btlonging to or claimed by 
either party on the continent of America, to the westward of tlie Stony 
Mountains.' Unlooked-for events prevented the ratification of the treaty, 
and theBubjsct was not again discussed until 1814. t 

* M. DuHot de Mofras, whose work on California, published at the ex- 
pense of the governmentof France, exhibits no partiality towards the Rng- 
lish. refers also to this map, and comes to the conclusion that the claims 
made by the Americans are without foundation : — 

' I'our la limitedusud le iVlexi(jus et I'Espagna ont agide la mene mv 
niere: ils out coicele aii-c Et its-Uais leurs driits sir le4C)ntre!3 situ- 
ees an nord du 42^ jjarallele ; mais il ctt de tout evidnn-e que letraite des 
Floridos ne sanrait porteratteintea la validite de la convention de 1790, il 
ne constitue qu'uno simple renonciation, et les Etats-Unis en y a Iheraut, s*- 
etant sulistitues al'Espagne pour leterritoire aregard<luqiiel ccii ,j.; ssa;.: 5 
resignaitses pretentions, doivent res[)ecter tousles droits qu'iin tr lite a:ite- 
rieur au leiir avuit reconnuaux Anglais. Si nous avions maintenant a e n3t- 
tre une opinion sur cette question importante, nous ne pourrions, m ilgro 
nos sympathies [>our les Etats-Unis et notre aversion contre le systeme d'en- 
vahissement de 1' Angleterre, nous enq)echer de reconnaitre que la rais )n et 
le droit sout cette fois de son cote. 11 est menie permis de s'etonner que, 
repudiantsa tcnacite habituelle, elle ait fait aux Americans, dans le cuursdes 
negocialions, de si larges sacrifices.' 

t The argument of Mr. Greenliow (p. 231), that the reason w;i3 ill con- 
si<lered for adopting the 49th parallel of latitude, namely, the treaty of 
Utrecht, and the acts of the commissioners, is founded on so manifest an er- 
ror respecting the extent of Canada, that it does not merit discussion. The 



30 

CONVKNTION BCTVVEEiN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED ST^ATES. 

In 1818 a convention was ratified between Great Britain and America, 
after a long negotiation, in which tlio facts already related formed the basis, 
by which the rights of both countries were subjected to a temporary com- 
promise. It was agreed that a line should be the northrjrn boundary along 
the 49th parallel of latitude, from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky 
Mountains, and that the country westward of the Rocky Mountains sliould 
be free and open for the term of ten years from the date of tlie convention 
to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of both powers, without prejudice to 
the claims of either country. 

At the end of ten years the negotiations on this subject were again re- 
newed It was pi opose.l by Mr Canning and Mr. Huskisson that the boun- 
dai-y beyond the Rocky Mountains should pass from those mountains west- 
ward along the 49th parallel of latitude to the north-easternmost branch of 
the Columbia River, and thence down the middle of the stream to the 
Pacific. This was not agreed to, and the negotiation terminated for a time. 

On the Gth of August, 1327, a convention was signed, renewing the pro- 
visions of the former one of October 20. 1818, and e.xtendnig it for an in- 
definite period, until either party should annul it, on giving a year's notice. 

Mr. Farnham, [lerfectly forgetful that the American government, in its 
negotiations respecting the establishment at Astoria, has admitted that the 
Oregon Territory was open to the settlement of other couutries thau that of 
Spain, affirms, with singular inconsistency, that an American title adver-e to 
Great Britain — and in fact to Spain — was formed through that setdement, 
and, also, that the sovereignty to the Oregon is vested in the government of 
America through a Spa' ish title (p. 52.) In other words, that the Ameri- 
can government possessed the sovereign'y of the country in 1813, and did 
not possess it until 1819. His arguments to establish both these positions 
are equally long, and the one is perfectly conclusive against the other: — 

" Drake (says Mr. F.), an English pirate, entered the Pacific Ocean, and 
pretended to have visited the coast between the latitudes 37° and 48°." 

"Elizabelh, while she knighted him, remunerated the subjects of the 

crown of Spain for the piracies he had committed. From such men's acta 
the laws of nations recognize r.o rights of nations to arise, because if it be 
still insisted that Drake ever saw this coast (!) and that his discovery was 
for the benefit of the crown of Eniil md, still it avails nothing, inasmuch m 
Spain had already discovered and ex|)lored it several years before ; and, in 
the fourth place, because England did not afterwards occupy by permanent 
.settlement, as reqiiii-eil by the laws in such cases governing.'' 

If this argument is believed to be a sufficient reply to the En;,'lish claim, 
it must be equally sufficient against any S|)anish title. Whatever doubt 
there may be respecting the e.vtent of Drake's discoveries, it must be ad- 
mitted that, no permanent settlement having been made, there did exist 
a right in any other country to step in and occupy the land discovered. 

adoption of the4!)lh parallel was a just arrangement, to both Great Britain 
and the United States, though it g,ive less th m the firmer had a title tu in 
bistou. Mr. .Jelfprson was perfectly satisfied with it — but feared that tha 
allusion to any claim extending to the const woidd be offensive to Spai.;.— « 
(Greeuhow, p. 282.) This was in 1307, after the purcliase of Louisiana. 



31 

But this objection applies, also, to ths Spanish title, r)r it is a known and 
admitted fact that, whatever may have been the discoveries of Spanish 
officers, no Spnni-h settlement was ever made north of Cape Mendoci, 
no, and the question comes back to this point — by wh.it panies, officially 
autliorized to make settlements, was a settlement in the Oregon Territory 
firstmade? There is no doubt of the fact that it was first done under the 
sanction and authority of the British government. If the opportunity at any 
t me existed for the government of Spain to have occupied the country, it 
never did so, and the country never formed any portion of its " provinces, 
dominions, or territories." This fact, which is conclusive in support of the 
British title, affords a perfect answer to another argument set foith by Mr. 
Farnham, founded on the treaty of Utrecht of 1713. He alleges that 
" England for ever quit-claimed to Spain, and warranted for ever to her 
monarch and his successors, the north-west coast of North America as far as 
the Straits de Fuca" (p. 55.) Need it be said tha' there is nothing in the 
treaty even indirectly referring to the north-west coast «f America? But 
as one groundless assumption ieaves the argument incomplete, another is 
needed, and, therefore, it is added, that — 

" The title of Spain to those countries and seas was not only exclusive, so 
far as exclusive discovery could give a title, bu' that the guara..tees of Eng- 
land and the other powers at the convention of Utrecht rendered all further 
acts, such as subsequent acts of occupancy, &3., unnecessary to perfect 
that title through all after time. For, by these guarantees, England and 
the other powers waived the necessity of occupancy, &c., required by 
the law of nations to perfect the inchoate rights of prior discovery ; and 
waived, also, the pjssibility, on the part of these powers, of accjuiring by 
subsequent discovery or occupancy any right in the territories thus sol- 
emnly conceded to Spain." 

This argument is certaiidy a singular jumble of contradictions and un- 
authorized assertions. The treaty, it is said, is still binding. If so, all the 
parties to it are bound to prevent the United States from interfering with 
Spanish territories; for the clause of ihe treaty cited in support of the argu- 
ment is, that' neither the Ki.i;:; ol Spain nor any of his heirs or successors 
shall transfer or under any pretence alienate from themselves and the crown 
of Spain any provinces, dominions, or territories in America.' If still in 
force, how came it that Spain alienated the Floridas in 1763 7 How has tha 
United States become entitled to the FU^ridas? Was there no alienation in 
that case ? But the argumeni admits that the Spanish government had no 
occupation of the country, and that ' subsequent jliscoveries' vn the west 
cotst might be made ; and then it is asserted, without any proal, that the 
government of Great Britain guaranteed the possession of dominions which 
Spain did not possess, and the possession of countries whit h were not dis- 
covered ! And to make the absurdity complete, this treaty — wliich it is 
alleged was to prevent new discoveries and settlements of America by the 
English, and, by consequence, its present possessiiin of the Oregon — is held 
by American authorities not to have been binding on the g(;vernment of 
Spain to prevent the alienation, to the government of the United States, of 
any territory it might have possessed in Western America • 



32 

This treity is eatir^ly misiadsrstooJ by Mr. Fcirnham ; brit his obser 
vations on it are valuable to prove how well satisfied he is that the title he 
endeavours to sustaiu is utterly iuvaliJ, and how perfectly well aware ha is 
of its exact defects. 

After having involved himself" in absurdities and contradictions in his in- 
ferences from the treaty of Utrecht, Mr. Faruham turns to the treaty of 
Tarisof 1763, and affirms that this also has been violated by the British go- 
vernmeut. 

' France, says he, had many reasons tor obtaining from that unsci-upulous 
neighbour (Great Britain) a guarantee of her territories 'west of the Mississippi,' 
and did so in the treaty of Versailles (1762) as far as )47'^ 10, or source of the 
Mississippi). If, therefore, she owned any land beyond the Mississippi val- 
ley, she ceded it to France. If she did not, she ceded her the right, as 
against herself, oi acquiring title to all the territory lying ' west of the Mis- 
sissippi and SDUth of the 49th parallel of latitude' (south of the source of the 
Mississippi). How will British sophistry maintain her claim (the claim of 
Great Britain) to the Oregon, as against the grantees of France ? To this 
treaty the United States, by the purchase of 1303, have become a party; 
and as by the treaties of Utrecht and Versailles, England has abandoned, in 
the one case, to Spain, ts high as latitude 43'^ north on the north-western 
coast of America; and, in the other case, as high as 49^ on the same coast ; 
it becomes difficult to see with vi'hat pretence of right she now comes for- 
ward to recover what she h;is thus salemuly, by two several treaties, de- 
ferred to others.' ' Although England, by virtue of the treaties of 1713 and 
1763, was precluded from g lining any right of sovereignty from discovery 
or occupation, the United Statss h ive labjured under uj such disa'nlity. 

To this argument the reply is complete. By the treaty of 1763 the 
boandary between Louisiana and the British possessions was ' irrevocably ' 
fixed. At that time the western boundary of Louisiana did njt extend 
beyond the Rocky Mountains. The country beyond the mountains 
did not belong to France, and therefore this treaty had no reference to 
it. There was no cession of a right to acquire lands beyond the limits of 
the French (lossessions, and there is not a word in the treaty to this effect. 

It has already been shown th it the treaty of Utrecht has no reference 
whatever to the Oregon; yet these two arguments on the treaties of 1713 
and 1763 have been set forth as conclusive against the claims of the British 
g)vernment. They do not in the slightest manner disturb the British title 
to the Or-egon territory fi)unded on prior occupation — setting aside any dis- 
cussion onths question of priordiscovery — and Mr. Farnham actually proves 
that Spain wasnot in a couditijn, in 1319, to confer any title to territory 
north of Cape Mendocino. 

*We own (says Mr. Farnham) Oregon by purchase from Spain, the sole 
discoverer anA first occupant of its coast ; 6y purchase from France, towhom 
E-igland, by the treaty of Versailles, relinquished her claim to it; and by our 
own discovery and prior occupancy of the Columbia River. Throughout 
tl.ii work incontrovertible authorities are relied on for historical facts, and 
for the constniction given to the laws of nations. Out of her own mouth is 
Brkaiu judged ; and if this pamphlet shall serve to convince my countrymen 



33 

of the insolent selfishness of Great Britain — her grasping injustice — her des- 
titution of political liouesty — and serve to show a necessity for the people to 
act for themselves, and to expect from the hands of their government at Wash- 
ington the maintenance of the rights and honour of their country ; the aulhcr 
(! I) will feel richly rewarded for whatever labour he has bestowed in col- 
lecting and arranging the evidence of their rights to the Oregon territory — 
the whole of it, and nothing less.' 

It is not satisfactory to reprint this, but it affords a very good example of 
the malignity of certain orators in America, and of the grave charges which 
are made to excite popular opinion against the government of this country.* 
The assertion that Spain was the first occupaut of the coast is contradicted 
by Mr. Farnham himself in his elaborate argument to prove that the treaty of 
Utrecht rendered any occupation of it by the government of Spain needless. 
That the English government relinquished the coast to France by the treaty 
of 1763 is impossible, for that treaty did not i*elate to territory not then occu- 
pied by the French; and Mr. Farnham's own argum2ntis directed to prove 
that the western coast, at that time, belonged to Spain. The facts of Gray's 
discoveries and of Aster's settlement need not be restated, having been al- 
ready very fully investigated. The claims of Great Britain are neither un- 
just, selfish, nor dishonest. They have sprung from events, the present re- 
sults of which v/ere not foreseen, If American claims have come into com- 
petition withthem, it has arisen from no act of the British government — and 
if they are opposed, it has not been for the purpose of aggrandizement, or 
in order to assert rights which are either untenable or unjust. 

The extreme north-western part of the coast of North America forms a 
portion of Russian territory. The title to it is partly that of discovery, and 
partly that only of occupation. The chief establishments, if not the only 
ones, formed on it, were made subsequently to the year 1793, when the 
coast from tha 5jth degree of north latitude northwards, was conceded to 
the Russian American Company. The company was authorised to explore 
and to bring under subjection to the Imperial Crown, any other territories 
in America, not previously attached to the dominions of some civilized nation. 
— (Greenliow, p 269). So that the Russian government, six years after the 
dispute between Spain and Great Britain respecting Noolka Sound, acted 
on the principle admitted in the convention of the Escurial, and directed 
establishments to be formed on vacant and unsettled parts of the coasts. 

In 1824, a convention was signed between the government of the United 
States and Russia, by the 3rd article of which it was agreed, that the citizens 

* Persons who have remained a few mouths in America must have been 
often surprised at the constant repetition of paragraphs in the public papers 
accusin^the English government of the expenditure of enormous sums of 
money for the acquisition of new territory, or in intrigues for this purpose. 
Sometimes we are said to be on the point of seizing Texas; at other times, 
that we have bought California, &c. Yet the writers of these articles are per- 
fectly well aware that no money can be expended by the British government 
without the assent of parliament, and that the purchase of territory without 
such assent is impracticable. The impolicy ot the intrigues with which we 
ar° charged does not excite the slightest doubt of the absurd designs imput> 
sdtous. 

3 



34 

of the United States should uot form settlements to the north of 54° 40' of 
north latitude, and that the subjects of Russia should not form establishments 
to the south of that parallel. The principle upon which this convention 
proceeded cannot be distinguished from that on which the claim of the Bri 
tish to part of the coast is founded. But if the government of the United 
States anticipated the squeezing out of British claims by this union with 
Russia, it was checked by the convention made in 1825, between Great 
Britain and Russia, by which the boundaries of the Russian territory are 
very distinctly defined, and the intended efl'ect of the convention with the 
United States — as far as the United States was interested in it — was checked. 

An argument has been advanced in favour of the claim of the United States 
on the ground of conLiguity. But it is one of even more force if it has 
any, in favour of Great Britain than of the United States. It means, if any- 
thing, that part of the territory claimed is essential to the perfect eajoyment 
of contiguous territory. Now the western trade of North America is chiefly 
that of peltries obtained by the English, and exported from Fort Vancouver, 
on the Columbia, and an access to the river is important to its continuance. 

In the state above mentioned the question at this time remains. The nego- 
tiatiims that have been renewed for its settlement have been confided to the 
Right Hon. Mr. Pakenham, the British minister at Washington, who will 
not be directed to propose, nor would he ask, or demand, anything incon- 
Biatent widi a just or a proper respect for American as well as British claims. 
Whatever concession the facts of the case admit of, will be perfectly consis- 
tent with the honour and the interests of the British government. But hith- 
erto the American government has not shown the slightest title to conces- 
sion, nor established its right to the territory which it demands. 

Notwithstanding the remarks which have been made by American wri- 
ters, the British government has acted with great temper and moderation. 
It has not placed its case on extreme rights, and it has been actuated by a 
rery sincere desire to maintain friendly relations with the United States. 
The errors of fact which have been coinmitted in the course of former ne- 
gotiations, have been upon very immaterial points, not in the slightest de- 
gree affecting the main question. 

It is greatly to be lamented, however, that in America it should have 
been the interest of violent politicians to have adopted a tone of discussion 
upon the subject opposed to its fair settlement. It is not honourable, while 
the title to the territory is undetermined between the respective govern 
meuts, to urge measures to populate it with American citizens, in order to 
give facilities for its occupation at a future period. Such recommendations 
do not indicate a conviction of the validity of the claim insisted on. Ameri 
ca, as well as Great Britain, has an interest in the establishment of a settled 
government in that part of the world — in marking out the limits of legal pos- 
session — and in rearing a population which, however they may di'er re- 
specting the system of government which they may prefer, shall look to the 
future, as bringing the fruits of a peaceful, generous, and civilized inter- 
course. The dispute is one that ought not to excite the exhibition of tem- 
per or of passion. It does not, as yet, affect the trade, fortune, or interests 
of a single American. The ambition of both governments ought to be to de- 



35 

cide it, 80 that peace — the greatest glory of civilization — may be preserved. 
That this will be the endeavour of the British govemmeat there can be no 
doubt. Those who conduct the negotiation will make it from a sense of 
honour and a care for the interests of the world, and they will be sustained 
by the mighty national resources, which allow of the concessions that have 
been made, and authorize them to insist upon what is just. 

It is stated, and probably correctly, that the British government has offer- 
ed to the government of the United States tosubmit the dispute to the arbitra- 
tion of some foreign power. Nothing could be more preper, and no meas- 
ure could be suggested better calculated to terminate it, amicably and satis- 
factorily. Some Amei-icau politicians may oppose it, and may claim the 
credit of very patriotic motives if they succeed in continuing what will soon 
become a very idle and useless discussion ; but even these men will be the 
first to be condemned by their own countrymen, when the consequences of 
their opposition shall interfere with the honourable reweirds of labour, and 
those fruits of commerce which follow in the train of a generous and enlight- 
ened system of diplomacy. 



DISCOVERIES 

IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. 



Pate. Extent. Nation. 

1543. Ferrela to 43° S. 

1579. Drake from 43° or 43° to 33i^, coasting but not exploring. The E. 
evidence is rather in favour of ihe forty-eighth degree as the point 
of commencement. The famous voyage published in 1589, by one 
of Drake's companions, speaks indeed of the extreme limit as 
* being in 43° of the pole arctic ; ' but the writer, more particular- 
ly as his immediate object was to show the intensity of the cold, 
most probably meant to express the polar distance, — the substitu- 
tion of within for ' in ' being all that would be wanted to render the 
expression perfectly perspicuous. But the context supports, as 
■well as suggests this supposition by contrasting ' in 43° of thb 
POLE ARCTIC ' with 'within 33° to%vards the line.' Again, 
Fletcher's Journal published in 1652, as the main text of ' Tha 
World Encompassed,' distinctly gives 43°, withoutreferringtoany 
discrepancy between itself and the ' Famous Voyage.' 

1592 Fuca, entering a strait between 47° and 48°, and passing many S. 
islands, reached the Atlantic. 

The discovery of the north-west Archipelago induces one to sup- 
pose that this romance may have been founded on fact. In other 
words, Fuca may have entered a strait of nearly the specified lati- 
tude, and passed many islands, and reached the Pacific. The gene- 
ral correctness, however, of the old pilot courses, while it adds pro- 
babiUty to this view of the case, is (juite irreconcilable with his own 
belief of the fabulous side of the story, particularly as, instead of 
going across to Spain, he returned the way he had gone. 

1603 Aguilar to 48°, — discovering near his highest limit a promontory S. 
and a river. Considering how little further Aguilar advanced than 
Ferrela had advanced in 1543, his details, though somewhat iucon- 
gruoas, do not require discussion. 



38 

1640 Fonte, near the parallel of 580, passing through what he called S. 
the Archipelago of San Lozaro into what he called the Rio de los 
Eeyes, and so on through lakes and rivers till he reached the At- 
lantic, and there met a ship that had come from Boston, in Massa- 
chusetts, by a northerly course. But like Fuca, Fonte retraced 
his steps. 

Fonte's romance, as well as Fuca's, may have been founded on 
fact, exhibiting, however, far more of an inventive genius. Perhaps 
neither of them would have been worthy of notice, had not Spain, 
in 1818, gravely urged both of them in support of its territorial 
claims. 

1774 Perez to 58°, generally coasting, but never exploring. In 49 1-2 S. 
he discovered what he called the Port of San Lorenzo, probably 
the same as Nootka Sound ; and he was, in 1789, reported by his 
pilot Martinez, to have entered the Strait of Fuca, — two years, he 

it observed, after Berkeley had actually entered it. 

1775 Heceta discovered the opening, which was subsequently ascer- 8. 
taiued to be the mouth of the Great River of the West, and which 
meanwhile was sometimes known as Eutrada Heceta and some- 
times as Rio de San Roque. 

1775 Bodeyaand Maurelle to 58°, exploi-ing as well as coasting. They S. 
were thus the first discoverers of the south-easterly portion of 
Russian America, and more particularly of Mount Edgecumb and 
Port Bucareh, respectively the best land-mark and the best har- 
bour on the coast. 

1777 Cook carefully explored to 48°, discovered, saving the unknown E. 
claim of Perez, Nootka Sound, passed onward without seeing 
land to Mount Edgecumb, surveyed Russian America from St. 
Elias to the shores of the Arctic Ocean, and ascertained that the 
two continents were separated by a strait, through which Beer- 
ing had sailed without knowing it to be such, doing far more 
to determine the direction and extent of the north-west coast 
than all his predecessors, Spanish, English and Russian, put to- 
gether. 

1779 Arteaya, Bodeya, and Maurelle. having previously made the land 8. 
only at Port Bucareli, followed Cook's footsteps from St. Elias, as 
far as Prince William's Sound. 

1787 Berkeley discovered the Strait of Fuca. E. 

To evade the East India Company's and South Sea Company's 
privileges, Berkeley carried the Austrian Flag. 

1737 Dixon, on strong grounds of suspicion, concluded that the coast, E. 
which lay to the uorthof 51°, was separated from the continent, 
and named it after his own ship. Queen Charlotte's Island. 

1783 Meares, can-ying Portuguese colours for purposes of evasion, E, 
penetrated into the Strait of Fuca somewhat further than Berkeley, 
and, after approaching Heceta's Rio de San Roque into several 
fathoms of water, was induced to deny the existence of the river 



in question on account of an apparently continuous barrier of 
breakers. 
1733 Martinez, sailing from San Bias, made directly for Prince Wil- S. 
liam"8 Sound, vviih the view, rather political than geographical, of 
observing the easterly progress of the Russian posts. 

1789 Gray advanced into the Strait of Fuca slill farther than Meares ; A. 
and, having just discovered what he called Piatard's sound in 51°, 
he was led to conclude that the two inlets met and separated Noot- 
ka Sound territory from the continent During the same season 
Gray also verified Dixon's similai- surmise by circumnavigating 
Queen Charlotte's Island. 

17S9 Duncan discovered the Princess Royal gi-oup between Queen 
Charlotte's Island and the continent. 

1790 Fidalgo again explored from Mount St. Elias to the Peninsula 8. 
of Aliaska. 

1791 Malaspiua examined the coasts north of Nootka Sound. S 
1791 Quim^:er and Elias explored the southern reach of the Strait of S 

Fuca. 

1791 Gray discovered, and partly explored, the Portland canal, taking A. 
it to be Fonte's Rio de los Reyes. 

1791 During preceding years, the Canadian traders had pretty accu- E. 
rately determined the general direction of the inland boundary, 
by exploring the McKenzie and the western feeders of the Missis- 
sippi. 

1791 Kendrick discovered a second outlet from Nootka Sound into A. 
the Pacific. 

1791 Ingraham and others surveyed portions of Queen Charlotte's A. 
Island. 

1792 Caamans explored the north-west Archipelago from 52° to 56°. S. 
1792 Vancouver surveyed the whole coast up to the Strait of Fuca, E. 
April being deterred from entering Heceta's Rio de San Roque, partly 

by the breakers that extended across its mouth, and partly by an 
erroneous estimate of the size of the stream or streams within. — 
Vancouver, however, sagaciously pronounced, that at best the river 
or inlet must be 'a VERY INTRICATE one,' and not a 'SAFE 
N WIGABLE opening, harbour, or place of security for shipping' 
of 'OUR BURTHEN.' 

1792 Gray, after discovering Bulfinch's, or Gray's, or Whidbey's A. 

May Harbour, entered Heceta's Rio de San Roque, having in the pre- 
vious year attempted, with as little success as Meares or Vancouver, 
to do so for nine successive days. Gray found ' the channel very 
narrow,' and ' not navigable any further up' than about ' fifteen 
miles,' even for the Columbia of 220 tons. 

1792 Vancouver prosecuted his survey along the Strait of Fuca, fall- E. 

May ing in with a secure harbour, named by him Port Discovery, and 
exploring as well as discovering the southern inlets of the Strait, to 
the very head of Puget's Sound. 

1792 June, July, and August.— Vancouver verified Gray's surmise, E. 



40 

tbat Nootka Sound territory was an island, giving it the names of 

Quadra and Vancouver. 
1792 Galiano and Valdez first accompanied, and then followed Van- S. 

couver in his researches of June, July, and August 
1792 Whidbey, one of Vancouver's officers, surveyed Bulfinch's, or E. 
Ojt. Gray's or Whidbey 's Harbour, ascertaining it to be ' a safe retreat 

for small vessels.' 

1792 Broughton, one of Vancouver's officers, surveyed the Columbia E. 

Oct. River, for upwards of a hundred miles from its mouth, Vancou- 
ver's own ship was 'unable to cross the bar;' and Broughtou's 
vessel, after almost immediately running aground, was ultimately 
left ' about four miles from the mouth,' because ' the channel proved 

to be so intricate.' 

1793 Vancouver surveyed the remamder of the north-west Archipela- E. 
go above Quadra and Vancouver's Island, with great skill and un- 
tiring patience. 

1793 Mackenzie crossed the hitherto untrodden Rocky Mountains, E 
descended part of the Tacoutche Tesse, a large river, whose mouth 

is in 49^, — about 5° fiirther south than the most northerly sources 
of the Columbia, — and then by land reached the Pacific in 51 1-2°, 
thus exploring, with undaunted courage, the breadth of the coun- 
try at the very same time that Vancouver was surveying its length 
with luminous precision. 

1794 Vancouver carefully examined Cook's Inlet, finding Cook's Riv- E. 
er to be a misnomer, and Prince William's Sound. 

1805 Lewis and Clarke crossed the Rocky Mountains nearly on the pa- A 
rallel of the mouth of the Columbia, in search of any convenient 
* water communicaiion across the continent for the purposes of com- 
merce,' and, embarking on one of the tramontane streams, reached 
the known portion of the Columbia by means of the southern branch 
of that river. 

1811 Thompson, of the North-west Company, descended the northern E 
branch of the Columbia to the newly-es' ablished Fort of Astoria. 

1811-12 Hunt crossed the Rocky Mountains much lower down than A. 
Lewis and Clarke, — thus traversing a larger portion of the valley of 
the southern branch. 

LIBPftRY OF CONGRESS 



HiHi 

017 185 163 4 < 



liir 

oor 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



017 185 163 4 



